Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Edward D. Kleinbard, Professor of Law at USC has published a research paper analyzing Cain 9-9-9 plan and have concluded that it's "a terrific example of fiscal hocus pocus. It is presented as a low-tax panacea, but it actually would raise the tax bills of many Americans very substantially. And ironically it imposes a new one-time wealth tax on the rich that might surprise Mr. Cain and his adherents."
Please read the full analysis here (you can download it as a PDF) and if you think the professor is wrong, please explain why.
I am hoping this will open some eyes. I am also open to arguments which might prove Kleinbard wrong. And please DO read the paper. Please don't be lazy and skim through it.
Edward D. Kleinbard, Professor of Law at USC has published a research paper analyzing Cain 9-9-9 plan and have concluded that it's "a terrific example of fiscal hocus pocus. It is presented as a low-tax panacea, but it actually would raise the tax bills of many Americans very substantially. And ironically it imposes a new one-time wealth tax on the rich that might surprise Mr. Cain and his adherents."
Please read the full analysis here (you can download it as a PDF) and if you think the professor is wrong, please explain why.
I am hoping this will open some eyes. I am also open to arguments which might prove Kleinbard wrong. And please DO read the paper. Please don't be lazy and skim through it.
I can't believe there's a big mystery around this plan. Those who live paycheck to paycheck will pay taxes of 18%. As income goes up, taxes go down, to the point where the super-rich will pay........... 9%.
I can't believe people are even talking about this, as if it has merit. I'd sooner let a high school economics student into the White House. Cain is a charlatan, because he just can't be that stupid.
I don't necessarily disagree myself, but I do want to give his supporters a chance to defend their case and prove us wrong. A lot of people support Cain because of his 999 plan and still think the plan is good, so let's hear them out.
Edward D. Kleinbard, Professor of Law at USC has published a research paper analyzing Cain 9-9-9 plan and have concluded that it's "a terrific example of fiscal hocus pocus. It is presented as a low-tax panacea, but it actually would raise the tax bills of many Americans very substantially. And ironically it imposes a new one-time wealth tax on the rich that might surprise Mr. Cain and his adherents."
Please read the full analysis here (you can download it as a PDF) and if you think the professor is wrong, please explain why.
I am hoping this will open some eyes. I am also open to arguments which might prove Kleinbard wrong. And please DO read the paper. Please don't be lazy and skim through it.
First of all, it isn't an effective 27% rate on wages. If that were the case, then we currently have a tax on wages of 45% plus sales tax in each state. This 45% figure is the average effective tax rate for personal income plus average effective tax rate for corporations.
Secondly, you fail to include consideration for savings i.e. you only spend consumption tax when you buy something, but when you save, those savings wouldn't be subject to the consumption tax.
So calling it a 27% tax is absurd.
I'd like to add, at least Herman Cain has a plan which is much more than our current president has.
I'm not here to defend or attack Mr Cain's plan. The important discussion not about this plans specifics; bad points or good points. Though that is helpful. It is about a real discussion about tax reform. The discussion ought to be what kind of tax reform will promote growth in this country. A rising tide can lift all boats, but only if it is sufficiently strong.
That means tax reform beyond let's tax the rich more, or we have to be faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiirrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Those too have become more about campaign sound bites, then reform.
Secondly, you fail to include consideration for savings i.e. you only spend consumption tax when you buy something, but when you save, those savings wouldn't be subject to the consumption tax.
But you do have to spend for essentials - food, energy, services etc. Will you buy "used" food? "used" energy? "used" plumber's service for repairing your broken faucet?
Did you read all of the document or just the first page?
I'm not here to defend or attack Mr Cain's plan. The important discussion not about this plans specifics; bad points or good points. Though that is helpful. It is about a real discussion about tax reform. The discussion ought to be what kind of tax reform will promote growth in this country. A rising tide can lift all boats, but only if it is sufficiently strong.
That means tax reform beyond let's tax the rich more, or we have to be faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiirrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Those too have become more about campaign sound bites, then reform.
While I agree about the need for tax reform, does that necessarily mean that we should embrace the most catchy tax reform phrase floating around without much afterthought? Is a Wells Fargo branch employee qualified to rewrite the country's tax code?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tropolis
the main counter ive seen from cain people, one that i think is legit, is that it gets the 47 percent who pay nothing involved in the game.
the other counter ive seen is that its fair, everybody gets the same rate regardless.
not saying i agree or disagree. im saying those are the main comments ive seen from cain supporters
While I too think that the 47% who currently don't pay anything should pay something, I think Cain's plan is too much. They live paycheck to paycheck, which means they spend all of the money they earn to make ends meet, so they will suffer the most.
Edward D. Kleinbard, Professor of Law at USC has published a research paper analyzing Cain 9-9-9 plan and have concluded that it's "a terrific example of fiscal hocus pocus. It is presented as a low-tax panacea, but it actually would raise the tax bills of many Americans very substantially. And ironically it imposes a new one-time wealth tax on the rich that might surprise Mr. Cain and his adherents."
Please read the full analysis here (you can download it as a PDF) and if you think the professor is wrong, please explain why.
I am hoping this will open some eyes. I am also open to arguments which might prove Kleinbard wrong. And please DO read the paper. Please don't be lazy and skim through it.
How are his supporters going to counter this when he doesn't or can't. They'll tell you the same thing he does, "those numbers are wrong." Period, end of story.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
